Background
Vincent A. Corson, Texas prisoner #1973705, appealed the dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The appeal came from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 5:25-CV-398. The defendants were Vanessa Alvarez, Martha Vasquezrosas, and Edmundo M. Cueto, Jr., identified in the caption by their positions at the Connally Unit, with Cueto identified as head warden. Corson presented three principal issues. The Fifth Circuit addressed them in an unpublished per curiam summary-calendar opinion filed November 6, 2026.
The first issue concerned prospective relief from alleged ongoing constitutional violations under the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity recognized in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Liberally construing the complaint under Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995), the court explained that Corson alleged prison staff regularly conducted constitutionally deficient “[b]iannual/[a]nnual” searches. He asserted that the shakedown procedure deprived him of noncontraband items without a pre-deprivation hearing. He sought to compel the warden, in his official capacity, to create “new shakedown policies” complying with procedural due process.
The second issue concerned a separate personal-capacity procedural due process claim against corrections officers who confiscated Corson’s textbooks during a shakedown. Corson alleged a random and unauthorized violation of an “established state procedure,” invoking Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543 (1981). The third issue was the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing the prospective-relief dismissal de novo under Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207, 209–10 (5th Cir. 2016), the court held that Corson’s allegations of ongoing federal-law violations permitted his claim to enjoin future unconstitutional action to proceed. It quoted Calhoun v. Collier, 78 F.4th 846, 851 (5th Cir. 2023), for that proposition. The court therefore vacated the judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings. It expressly declined to opine on the merits of the prospective procedural due process claim and identified that claim as Corson’s only remaining claim. The ruling thus concerns whether the claim may proceed, not whether Corson is entitled to the requested policy changes.
The court also reviewed de novo the dismissal of the personal-capacity textbook-confiscation claim. Although Corson alleged a random and unauthorized violation of established state procedure, his complaint did not allege that Texas fails to provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The court held that the claim failed under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, citing Weeks v. Collier, No. 22-10126, 2023 WL 7703823, at *5 (5th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023), which quoted Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004). Relying also on Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 115 (1990), the court agreed that the alleged deprivation did not give rise to a § 1983 procedural due process claim because the State did not fail to provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy. It affirmed that portion of the dismissal.
Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. Corson failed to show that the denial was “so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” the standard quoted from Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981). The complete disposition was that the district court’s judgment was affirmed in part and vacated in part, with the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Allegations of ongoing constitutional violations and a request to enjoin future action allowed Corson’s official-capacity prospective-relief claim to proceed under Ex Parte Young.
- The Fifth Circuit did not decide the merits of the proposed shakedown-policy claim; it vacated only in part and remanded that sole remaining claim.
- The personal-capacity textbook claim failed because the complaint did not allege that Texas lacked an adequate post-deprivation remedy.
- The Rule 60(b) denial was affirmed because Corson did not establish the requisite abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
The opinion distinguishes a claim seeking prospective relief from alleged ongoing violations from a personal-capacity claim arising from a completed property deprivation. The former survived the challenged dismissal based on the allegations and requested injunction; the latter remained dismissed because the necessary allegation concerning an inadequate state post-deprivation remedy was absent.
For attorneys reviewing prisoner § 1915A(b)(1) dismissals, the decision also underscores the importance of identifying the capacity in which each defendant is sued and the precise relief sought. The remand is not a merits victory on new shakedown policies, and it does not revive the textbook-confiscation claim or disturb the Rule 60(b) ruling.